[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8GbsulOXWNK9WGs@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 09:58:10 -0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Equip sleepable RCU with lockdep dependency
graph checks
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:03:30PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2023 22:59:54 -0800 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > @@ -1267,6 +1267,8 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp, bool do_norm)
> > {
> > struct rcu_synchronize rcu;
> >
> > + srcu_lock_sync(&ssp->dep_map);
> > +
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lockdep_is_held(ssp) ||
> > lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
> > lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > --
> > 2.38.1
>
> The following deadlock is able to escape srcu_lock_sync() because the
> __lock_release folded in sync leaves one lock on the sync side.
>
> cpu9 cpu0
> --- ---
> lock A srcu_lock_acquire(&ssp->dep_map);
> srcu_lock_sync(&ssp->dep_map);
> lock A
But isn't it just the srcu_mutex_ABBA test case in patch #3, and my run
of lockdep selftest shows we can catch it. Anything subtle I'm missing?
Regards,
Boqun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists